final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 17-10602 Migna
Jarbath Peña Law Group, P.A., and Fritznie Jarbath,
Office of Rick Yabor, P.A., and Rick Yabor, for appellee.
LINDSEY, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ.
Hector Ziegler, the husband, challenges the trial court's
order invalidating an antenuptial agreement prepared by his
counsel and executed by appellee, Raquel Alonso Natera, the
wife, on the eve of their wedding in Venezuela. We assign no
error and, accordingly, affirm.
2011, the parties planned to marry in Venezuela. Six days
before their wedding, the husband presented the wife with a
draft of an antenuptial agreement. At the time, the wife was
four months pregnant with their second child. The only
financial disclosures contained within the document were
perfunctory references to the husband's ownership of
certain nominal non-convertible bearer shares with
corresponding assigned nominal values. The agreement did not
provide for equitable distribution or alimony. The husband
allowed the wife to peruse the document and then assured her
that he would furnish full financial disclosures prior to the
before the wedding, having not yet provided any financial
documentation, the husband threatened to cancel the ceremony
if the wife did not sign the agreement, and advised her that
a failure to obtain the marriage certificate on the planned
date would thwart the couple's imminent plan to emigrate
to the United States. The wife reluctantly signed the agreement
and the marriage was solemnized, however, the union did not
than six years later, the husband initiated dissolution
proceedings in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The wife sought to
invalidate the antenuptial agreement, contending it was the
product of "duress, coercion, or overreaching," and
was unconscionable, as it had been executed in the absence of
full and fair financial disclosure, and thus, was properly
avoidable under Florida law. See § 61.079(7)(a),
Fla. Stat. (2019). Following an evidentiary hearing, convened
to determine the circumstances surrounding the execution of
the agreement, the court entered an order concluding the
agreement had been executed under duress and in the absence
of both full financial disclosure and waiver of said
disclosure. This appeal ensued.
AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)c. "We review a trial court's
determination of the voidability of an antenuptial agreement
for competent, substantial evidence." Bakos v.
Bakos, 950 So.2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing
Simzer v. Simzer, 514 So.2d 372, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA
1987)). "[T]he findings of the trial court come to this
court clothed with a presumption of correctness[, ] and will
not be disturbed absent a showing that there was no competent
evidence to sustain them." Baker v. Baker, 394
So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (citations omitted);
see also Schreiber v. Schreiber, 795 So.2d 1054,
1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Snedaker v. Snedaker, 660
So.2d 1070, 1072-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).